On 25 Jun, 16:21, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:57:32 -0700, art wrote:
'The "law" used to prove a concept, was in fact,
Maxwells extension of statics to the time domain'

Arthur,

I have no problem with that statement so it
provides an ideal starting point.

There are accepted convention in faithfully quoting a document you are
immediately responding to. To take my words and re-arrange them to
suit your own way of understanding is NOT a quote from me.

If you will be specific I will gladly change to your satisfaction
and apologise if required. I don't remember using double quotes("..")
but I am not going to quibble.



My understanding is that Maxwell had a host
of theorems by many scientists from which
to draw information from, many of which
gave the connection of the statics to
time domain aproach.

I am not aware of any evidence that he drew on Gauss
for this since Gauss had not provided this extension.
Can you supply me a source that verifies this fact?

You mean like he NAMED one of his laws after Gauss? Doesn't that give
you a clue? Dr. D. already supplied the source, I responded to it and
corrected Dr. D's error of attribution.



I would be more than happy to read that
source if you state without qualification that Gauss's law of Statics
was modified by Maxwell to form a basis of a radiating antenna
is illustrated in that book.
I know of no reference anywhere that refers to a radiator or cluster
of
radiators loaded with static particles in a closed loop or "pill box"
as defined by Gaussian law. Certainly the good Doctor did not intimate
that such a reference was in that book but I welcome a snippit of
that conversation that tells me otherwise.
If you can state what page where it can be seen I would be most
gratefull and certainly would provide it to the PTO as required
by law . If Feynman supplied that history that would be fine by me.
Such a reference is not only required by law but it would
also provide a reference of prior use of that "law" against which
my request can be referred to for similarities, together with
a description of that antenna that the public can also see
for there own education. Providing this reference would be
seen as a courtesy by me and supplied without rancour and
certainly would provide what the group has been asking for
i.e. something that everybody can understand and be grateful
for.

Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG

............................
The rest to be responded to later if necessary or required

Read the source we BOTH refer to. It has been offered to you by us
BOTH.
We then come to a very important question with regard
to my patent request.
Since you say it has already been invented



Show my statement, in my own words, quoted in the accepted convention
from the exact source (in other words, highlight the statement in the
original posting I made, and post that here).

If you cannot perform the minimum practices of quoting, then there's
nothing more to be said.

I will deal with this after question 1 is responded to in a proper
manner
Question 1 is the very description that the naysayers are asking for
so they can understand the antenna but Q1 comes before Q2.
In fact if question 1 is satified it also satisfies Question 2
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC